tv [untitled] February 10, 2011 10:00pm-10:30pm PST
putting more cars on roads. it will be people who are living here. i think a lot of them will be working here. i think our population base will grow and it will make it better for businesses to be here. their workers will be here. they will not be in other areas. one thing i want to comment on is something i think is important. we have a vision of what it is quick to look like as far as the open space. we did see the organic farm, which is a good concept. we saw playing fields and other types of native plants. but i think we have to have flexibility. i am aware of the fog and the wind. you are not going to grow a lot of things there. you will have to go easy on the farming concept. it is a good idea. i would not overdo it. i think we should have the flexibility in the plan to use
our open space in the method that is best suited. there is nothing wrong with restoring some of the lawns there. you would be using recycled water. one of the things residents like is getting up in the morning and looking out on green grass. it is a nice, fresh feeling, and i do not have to do anything on it. this is the advantage they would have if it is maintained by the owners there. i think they enjoy that now. they should continue to enjoy that. also, it is going to allow the west side of san francisco to do its share. we have not been the source of much new housing. we have a lot of resources for our children who might want to relocate to san francisco. this is going to give us the opportunity to add to the housing stock. there are not many sites for this is possible in western san francisco, but this is one. this housing development of
1939, whenever it was started, was always a complex of apartments, multi-family housing. but it brings diversity into western san francisco. most of the rest of the area is single-family homes. i think that is important. we are not changing anything there. we are just adding more opportunities. the concerns of the renters are legitimate, but i think they are safer with the development agreement than without. the development agreement supersedes law change, as far as i am concerned. what i am hearing is that if the law were to change in the future and rent control provisions were not as inclusive as they are now, and there were fewer protections, the development agreement in place would be a protection. that is basically what you have indefinitely.
the units continue indefinitely. that was not brought up. i was happy to see a lot of people i knew were testifying. some people spoke about the fact it would not be affordable. i think with that many units being built in different configurations, both for rental and ownership, they are going to be at much more affordable prices and we have seen in the past. i have also noticed that one of the things that is part of our motion that we will hopefully approve tonight gives the supervisors and others in the planning department the process to continue to work with the project sponsor to make changes that do not significantly lower the benefits of the project or increase any cost that might be incurred.
that is really important. it is also important that we have the flexibility to tailor this plan. there were concerns about impacts and other things. we will work with the project sponsor to minimize that as we go along. those are some of the reasons i favor this plan. i know we have a lot of other comments by other commissioners, but it was made very clear from the beginning that this is going to be a phased development. we are approving the entire development tonight, but it will be faced. each phase goes through with the commensurate public amenities. that is important to me. commissioner sugaya: a couple of things. first, i would like to acknowledge that the planning commission has received correspondence from assemblyman almiano, dated february 10.
he writes to urge us to deny approval for the redevelopment of parkmerced before us today. he goes on and cites his reasons. i just wanted to put that in the public record, the written letter. i am sure it is with our secretary. we also received a bunch of materials as we came back from our short break, and i do not know what all the changes are. i am a little concerned that we are going to be voting on something that we are not quite pretty to at this point. this is going to take about 45 minutes, so we are going to be here a long time unless i cut it short. but i have about 30 tabs in here that i need to go to the development agreement on.
development agreement. i will mention some concerns i have about it, and then i will submit everything else in more detail in writing. that way, everyone can have that. i assume that will be part of the public record and we can go on to whoever else can look at this thing. i do have some other questions. commissioner moore: i would very much appreciate if i could hear an elaboration on those points. commissioner sugaya speaks with an expertise that few of us have. president olague: you did mention you would try to highlight those points. if you could leverage for the commission? -- elaborate for the commission?
commissioner sugaya: before i get to that, with the ceqa findings, i have one question for staff. these are the old findings, so i do not know if the page numbers are correct. on page 7, you are listing the army corps of engineers. is that going to require a section 106 evaluation? >> i think that is in reference >> i think that is in reference to the storm water commission.